BackgroundExtracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) has been shown as active therapy for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).Study Design and MethodsThe aim was to ascertain the role of ECP in 71 patients with steroid-refractory or -dependent acute and chronic GVHD (aGVHD and cGVHD) with special focus on hematologic variables and GVHD staging classification. A total of 34 patients were treated for aGVHD and 37 for cGVHD.ResultsThe overall response rate (ORR) for aGVHD was 65% and the complete aGVHD-free survival was 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36%-70%). The ORR for cGVHD response was 81% while the complete cGVHD-free survival was 50% (95% CI, 34%-73%). The aGVHD-free survival was associated with aGVHD grading (Grade II 81%, Grade III 33%, and Grade IV 0%, p ≤ 0.00) and the absence of visceral involvement (77% vs. 33%, p = 0.03). The cGVHD-free survival was associated with the female sex (67% vs. 25%, p = 0.01) and with the limited form according to the Seattle classification (67% vs. 20%, p = 0.003). No role for hematologic values or apheresis cell count was found, except for the cGVHD ORR (p = 0.037). Transplant-related mortality and overall survival were associated with ECP response 0% versus 54% (p = 0.0001) and 77% versus 45% (p = 0.03) for aGVHD patients and 7% versus 14% (p = 0.02) and 73% versus 20% (p = 0.0003) for cGVHD patients, respectively.ConclusionsWhile confirming a higher probability of GVHD responses for early GVHD, our study shows no role of hematologic values or apheresis cell count on GVHD response.

This study was aimed at ascertaining whether extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is an effective treatment for pediatric patients with steroid resistant graft versus host disease (GvHD). Fifteen patients with acute GvHD (aGvHD) and 10 patients with chronic GvHD (cGvHD) were enrolled in the study. At the start of the ECP protocol, aGvHD was staged as II (n=7), III (n=4), and IV (n=4). The response rate was 100% for aGvHD II, 75% for aGvHD III, and finally 0% for aGvHD IV (P=0.02). In multivariate analysis, the strongest predictor for ECP response was the aGvHD severity: aGvHD II 100%, aGvHD III-IV 30% [relative risk (RR) 5.071, confidence interval (CI) 95% 2.2-5.5, P=0.0016], this translates in a higher risk of transplant-related mortality for ECP nonresponders (RR 5.26, CI 95% 3.4-6.2, P=0.02). cGvHD was diagnosed as limited n=3, and extensive n=7; the response rate was 100% and 28% for limited or extensive cGvHD, respectively (P=0.03). For cGvHD the strongest predictor for ECP response was the absence of visceral organ involvement (RR 5.17, CI 95% 2-4.9, P=0.001), and the highest risk of transplant-related mortality was among patients not responding to ECP (RR 12.4, CI 95%, P=0.02). Our results suggest that ECP can rescue good-risk GvHD-patients, whereas for advanced, poor-risk GvHD patients, new therapies are required.

Background The efficacy of early treatment with convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 is debated. Nothing is known about the potential effect of other plasma components other than anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Methods To determine whether convalescent or standard plasma would improve outcomes for adults in early phase of Covid19 respiratory impairment we designed this randomized, three-arms, clinical trial (PLACO COVID) blinded on interventional arms that was conducted from June 2020 to August 2021. It was a multicentric trial at 19 Italian hospitals. We enrolled 180 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia within 5 days from the onset of respiratory distress. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard of care (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of standard plasma (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of high-titre convalescent plasma (n = 60) administered on days 1, 3, 5 after randomization. Primary outcome was 30-days mortality. Secondary outcomes were: incidence of mechanical ventilation or death at day 30, 6-month mortality, proportion of days with mechanical ventilation on total length of hospital stay, IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, viral clearance from plasma and respiratory tract samples, and variations in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. The trial was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Results 180 patients (133/180 [73.9%] males, mean age 66.6 years [IQR 57–73]) were enrolled a median of 8 days from onset of symptoms. At enrollment, 88.9% of patients showed moderate/severe respiratory failure. 30-days mortality was 20% in Control arm, 23% in Convalescent (risk ratio [RR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–2.13, P = 0.694) and 25% in Standard plasma (RR 1.23; 95%CI, 0.63–2.37, P = 0.544). Time to viral clearance from respiratory tract was 21 days for Convalescent, 28 for Standard plasma and 23 in Control arm but differences were not statistically significant. No differences for other secondary endpoints were seen in the three arms. Serious adverse events were reported in 1.7%, 3.3% and 5% of patients in Control, Standard and Convalescent plasma arms respectively. Conclusions Neither high-titer Convalescent nor Standard plasma improve outcomes of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04428021. First posted: 11/06/2020

No abstract

No abstract